BATMAN (1989) DIR: Tim Burton - Cine-Apocalypse

Breaking

Post Top Ad

Responsive Ads Here

Post Top Ad

Responsive Ads Here

Monday 23 July 2012

BATMAN (1989) DIR: Tim Burton
















So Christopher Nolan's final instalment in his Dark Knight Trilogy is upon us, and despite the terrible events that have happened in Aurora, Colorado, it's taken $170mill so far. Anywho, I decided to return to 1989's Batman for this review and to look at how it fares not 23 years later. Review after the jump....

To prepare myself for the release of The Dark Knight Rises, I decided to forego watching the obligatory Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in favour of Tim Burton's 1989 effort, the first stab at bringing Bob Kane's masked vigilante to the big screen (yeah I know they made a movie out of the 60s TV Show, but this was the first big budget version), the wonderfully titled....BATMAN. Now I grew up watching the previous Batman series, but looking back at the Burton's first film, I found it a little hard to watch which is because I think Christopher Nolan's Batman has been so prominent in our lives for the last 7 years, anything that came before is going to seem inferior. No that's not to say Batman '89 is a bad film, quite the opposite, but compared to the grittier, more realistic approach to the character that Nolan gave us, Burton's seem more in-line with the Adam West show of the 1960s, it's a lot more cartoonish which I found depressingly jarring having grown up with those film through the 1990s.

Things got progressively worse as those films went along, with the exception of Batman Returns, when Joel Schumacher to over the reins, he decided to wrap them in bubblegum and gives a throwback to the 60s era Batman, which unfortunately seemed to be it's downfall, especially at a time when the Batman comics were getting decidedly more darker in tone thanks to writer's like Frank Miller and his Year 1 books, Knight Fall and Jeph Loeb's Long Halloween (which in my opinion should be made into a movie ASAP), Schumacher killed the franchise with Batman & Robin which almost became a spoof of what was done before hand which is actually quite insulting to Tim Burton, but I shouldn't dwell on the the latter half of that franchise because this is a review for Batman '89. What we have is the origin of the Joker played in OTT fashion by Jack Nicholson, his transformation from second hand guy to Jack Palance's gangster Carl Grissom to maniacal crime kingpin. It's all about the Joker and very little is focused on batman, he has no origin in this apart from some small snippets of back story told in flash backs and in tales told by Alfred, Bruce Wayne seems like a lonely person, cooped up in this big mansion with just Alfred, he seems lost but all that changes when sexy photographer Vicki Vale comes on the scene. Bruce comes more out of his shell when he's around Miss Vale. But it's still all about the Joker, and how he terrorizes Gotham.

When it comes to the casting of Batman, it's all about Jack, It's Nicholson's show from minute one and he relishes every moment on screen, taking the joker beyond pantomime villain into seriously deranged psychopathic realms of villainy. Now it's completely unfair to compare Nicholson's Joker to Heath Ledger's as both are totally different, Ledger went to a dark place to pull off his incredible performance as the sociapathic Joker in The Dark Knight, but Nicholson was less intense and a lot more fun to watch as he was doing what the joker should be doing and smiling about it. There's a level of overacting going on in Nicholson's performance and I think it's what really keeps the film together because he makes you want to watch every time he's on screen just to see what naughty shenanigans he'll get up to next. That's not to say Ledger didn't do that, but he made people want to watch because of his intense spin on the character. Jack Nicholson is a much more accessible and likeable Joker and that's what makes this film fun.

Michael Keaton was an odd choice for Bruce Wayne/Batman, as he's not an action star or a muscular man, but he's a good actor and he's well cast as Both, he's much more light and less intense than Christian Bale and he tends not to live up to this playboy image that people have of him, one scene, a diner scene in which Bruce and Vicki are eating in this huge dining room with a massive table dead centre sees Bruce and one end and Vicki at the other and Bruce decides that they should move so they end up in the kitchen where Alfred relays a story about Bruce's youth to Vale. It's this kind of scene we wouldn't get in a Christopher Nolan Batman film. This shows that Bruce is just like everyone else which I think is kind of cool.

Looking back now, while the production design is fantastic, it does look relatively dated, especially while watching the film on DVD or VHS as a reviewer, I noticed a lot of imperfections and quite low quality FX for the time it was made. Another problem I had was the 1940s look the film had when it came to costumes and sets, Gotham looks great but it suffered from an industrial look which reminds me more of the old matinee stuff we had back in the 40s and 50s with pipes and weird architecture spread around the city and the news room of the Gotham Gazette, which looked like a news room from a classic film, then the characters step outside and we have modern day cars, Colour TV's and Video Cameras not mention Prince songs, this really threw me off as the concept of a retro modern environment would have worked much better had the film been set in the 40s or 50s. It's touches like this that brings the film down a notch after all these years. But maybe I was content with that before Christopher Nolan's film came out which is only why it now throws me off. There's not a single bad thing I can say about Tim Burton's direction as it's pretty damn good and he even upped the look and style for the phenomenal Batman Returns, but it's the period design that really got me thinking over the film.

Overall Tim Burton's Batman is an enjoyable action adventure with a some great sets and some inspired action sequences that is let down by outdated special FX and a confusing retro modern concept. At times it feels quite childish but at other times it feels quite serious. It has a great over the top performance by Jack Nicholson and a good performance by Michael Keaton, all set to a brilliant score by Danny Elfman. I've not seen it on Blu-ray yet but the DVD release that I have isn't that great as the picture is quite grainy and at times quite dark, but for pure popcorn entertainment and an alternative to Christopher Nolan's Batman, Tim Burton's film is a definite recommendation.  

Words: Peter W.Osmond


1 comment:

  1. Good review Peter. There’s some camp to this flick but it goes along perfectly with the overall mood and pace of Burton’s direction. Obviously Nicholson is the main stand-out in this flick, but it’s also Keaton who does an exceptional job as Batman/Bruce Wayne acting like a normal dude, who just dresses up like a bat and beats crooks up at-night. That Prince music is a little strange, though.

    ReplyDelete

Post Top Ad

Responsive Ads Here